India woke up to telecommunications through the reforms of the late 1990s: the power of DOT was curtailed, VSNL was privatised, private and foreign companies were permitted, new methods of working were permitted. At the time, wired lines were mainstream and wireless communications was novel. However, setting up wire lines in India is very hard. India leapfrogged, and jumped into the mobile revolution for both voice and data. The concept of not having a land line at home was exotic in the US when it was normal in India. In similar fashion, India was an early adopter of electronic order matching for financial trading, and of second generation pension reforms: these things became mainstream in the world after they were done in India.
Could similar leapfrogging take place in the field of electricity?
Game-changer.
This can be done since it is already being done in off-the-grid housing in many countries, including the United States, where building out the grid would be profitably expensive unless it were subsidized. Less expensive to subsidize decentralization, which California undertook some time ago with a 50% credit initially and later scaled back.
There are now university level programs in sustainable living in the US, as well as non-profits dedicated to promoting sustainable living. A wide range of products and services is also available commercially.
It's happening. Moreover, the issue of scale is minimized since decentralization through on-site and local provision are fundamental. The only issue of scale is producing enough products and training enough service people to meet the growing need. This, of course, provides a host of new job opportunities.
Surprisingly (or not) Shah does not mention negative externalities in his market-based analysis, although he does mention positive externalities. When negative externalities are accounted for, the true cost of carbon-based energy is far higher than the market price, and the difference is being socialized. That is uneconomic as well as anti-social.
This can be done since it is already being done in off-the-grid housing in many countries, including the United States, where building out the grid would be profitably expensive unless it were subsidized. Less expensive to subsidize decentralization, which California undertook some time ago with a 50% credit initially and later scaled back.
There are now university level programs in sustainable living in the US, as well as non-profits dedicated to promoting sustainable living. A wide range of products and services is also available commercially.
It's happening. Moreover, the issue of scale is minimized since decentralization through on-site and local provision are fundamental. The only issue of scale is producing enough products and training enough service people to meet the growing need. This, of course, provides a host of new job opportunities.
Surprisingly (or not) Shah does not mention negative externalities in his market-based analysis, although he does mention positive externalities. When negative externalities are accounted for, the true cost of carbon-based energy is far higher than the market price, and the difference is being socialized. That is uneconomic as well as anti-social.
Can India leapfrog into decentralised energy?
Ajay Shah
1 comment:
The government has provided subsidies to most purchasers of solar panels and has provided decades of research and development that made the technology. If there is a public power grid within an economic distance, the electric producer should be forced to contribute their excess subsidized production back to society and to the grid rather than let it go to waste, whether they produce 1kw or 10 Gw. The rich and elite love the idea of investing and buying their power generation so they never have to cooperate or contribute anything to society while capturing public largesse. This is clearly interstate commerce and the federal government should claim their ownership of a piece of the production from every solar panel and should regulate the production heavily to benefit the poor. For a progressive stance, they should require 1/3 of the power generated by every residential or commercial solar panel be simply given back to the grid to lower the prices for the poor who can't afford to purchase their own or live in rental property. The problem is that policy is mostly being developed on the west coast, run by dems and environmental conservatives, who have an unholy alliance hell bent on libertarian ideals. They need a good dose of east coast or midwest progressive politics to fix their wagons to reduce the tendency for selfish behavior and remind everyone that cooperation is the only option. Our national policy is swiftly transitioning to renewables and we are going to need a better framework of grid regulation as power plants are shuttered and the time to start is now.
Post a Comment